[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 67 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1807-S1812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7917 FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
FEDERAL LANDS; COOK, LAKE, AND SAINT LOUIS COUNTIES, MN
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 140, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for
Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis
Counties, MN.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
SAVE America Act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the SAVE America Act has been a
discussion for quite a few days on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and I
would like to give my update on that. I have already spoken once on the
subject. But before I speak, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record after my speech some of the remarks that my
constituents have been sending to my office on this issue so that they
have direct quotations from letters backing up what I am saying here on
the Senate floor today.
Mr. President, as I said, I am a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act.
This SAVE America Act ensures only U.S. citizens are registered to vote
in Federal elections, and it also requires voter ID when voting. Now,
that is pretty simple. It is so simple that 85 percent of Americans
generally support those principles of voter ID and only citizens
voting. Even 71 percent of the Democrats in polls also support that.
Now, what I have inserted in the Record is what I have heard from
some Iowa constituents who would say that while election integrity is
important, noncitizen voting is not an issue. Some of my constituents
even accept that noncitizen voting happens, but at the same time, they
say it is not that often, so we should just ignore it.
That is not how the rule of law works, and we all take an oath to
uphold the rule of law. And I will bet every one of our constituents
say the rule of law is a principle applying in America and it should be
fully supported.
It is a fact that nobody's vote should be diluted by people voting
who are not eligible to vote and that voter fraud should not be
ignored, no matter the scale.
I want to share some recent examples of noncitizens registering to
vote and voting in elections. The first one is the State of Montana. In
a State where elections have been decided by only a handful of votes,
23 potential noncitizens cast nearly 150 votes in various elections.
Then let's go to the State of Ohio. In 2024, Ohio found 597
noncitizens registered to vote--138 of whom voted in recent elections--
that lacked citizenship status.
Then in Texas--Texas removed over 6,500 noncitizens from their voter
rolls between the years 2020 and 2024. That is a larger population than
some small Iowa towns.
Then let's go to New Jersey. In January, two people in New Jersey
were charged with illegal voting in the 2020 elections. This is in
addition to other foreign nationals charged last year for registering
to vote and voting in Florida and Massachusetts.
[[Page S1808]]
My home State of Iowa takes pride in civic participation and election
integrity. Even so, in my State, our secretary of state found 277
noncitizens registered to vote and 35 who actually cast ballots in
2024.
Maybe you would say this doesn't really matter because most people
win by thousands or at least hundreds of votes, but I want to give you
an example in Iowa where we had a very close election and just a
handful of people not registered legally to vote--either they were
noncitizens or they weren't the people that said they were going to
vote. So we know elections can be decided by just a handful of votes.
Iowa experienced that firsthand in 2020 when one of our congressional
seats was decided by six votes. That is Miller-Meeks, presently a
Congresswoman from southeast Iowa. So we have that election
demonstrating how every single vote matters and why only legally cast
ballots ought to be counted.
Citizen participation is a sacred cornerstone of representative
government. The SAVE America Act gives Americans absolute confidence
that their elected representatives won fair and square, by the people
who are legally eligible to vote.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
``We don't have a problem with fraudulent voting,
especially in Iowa. We don't have a problem anywhere, but we
certainly don't have one in Iowa with the excellent election
process.''
``Please do NOT vote for the SAVE ACT. It addresses NO
ISSUE!!!''
``There is no voter fraud occurring in our elections . . .
no evidence of fraud.''
``No evidence of fraud in federal elections.''
``It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in
national and state elections. Illegal voting by immigrants
very, very rarely happens in this country.''
``It is no surprise that noncitizen voting is extremely
rare and never significantly affects election outcomes.''
``There is no evidence of voter fraud that would justify
this legislation.''
``Evidence shows that noncitizen voting is nearly
nonexistent.''
``Why are they working so hard to create a law for a nearly
nonexistent problem?''
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The majority leader is recognized.
Reconciliation
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one thing you can always count on is that
Democrats have a lot of nerve. The Democrat leader has been out and
about, this week, criticizing Republicans for taking up reconciliation
legislation to fund border security and immigration enforcement.
This was his quote:
Republicans are dragging the Senate through a partisan
circus just to avoid basic accountability for ICE and Border
Patrol.
Let me repeat that:
Republicans are dragging the Senate through a partisan
circus.
Is he serious? Because the shoe is entirely on the other foot.
Democrats, through their stubborn refusal to seriously engage in
bipartisan negotiations and their ultimate refusal to fund law
enforcement at all, have forced us into a position where the only way
we can fund law enforcement and border security is through
reconciliation.
A big priority of mine, when I became leader, was conducting
appropriations through regular order. And despite Democrats' decision
to shut down the entire Federal Government for 43 days in the fall, we
were well on our way to passing all of fiscal year 2026 appropriation
bills--all 12.
We had a bipartisan deal on DHS funding--DHS funding for the entire
Department--that included additional funding for body cameras for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, deescalation training, and
increased oversight of ICE funding.
But then Democrats reneged on that agreement. But did Republicans
then move to reconciliation? Not at all. We bent over backward to reach
a new deal with Democrats. The White House repeatedly--repeatedly--
offered a robust package of reforms, and we spent weeks--weeks--trying
to negotiate.
But Democrats weren't interested in negotiation. A good example of
that is that one of the offers that was made by the White House wasn't
responded to by Democrats for 18 days. Eighteen days we kept coming out
here saying: Come on. Give us a counteroffer here. You want reforms,
you want changes made; let's sit down and figure that out.
Just more stall, delay, obstruct.
I would say they were interested in nothing but their exact list of
demands with no compromises, but I strongly suspect that Democrats were
never interested in a deal at all.
And, in fact, after weeks of stonewalling, Democrats eventually made
it clear that no deal was happening, which meant that either
Republicans acceded to Democrats' refusal to fund law enforcement and
border security or--or--we pursue the only option left to us, which is
funding law enforcement and border security through reconciliation.
If Democrats want to be the party of defunding law enforcement and
open borders, then so be it. But we are not going to join Democrats in
their irresponsible refusal to fund key parts of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Democrats refused to fund the deportation of criminal illegal aliens,
individuals guilty of things like murder, assault, and sexual crimes
against minors. They refused to fund drug interdiction and efforts to
fight human trafficking. They refused to fund border security. That is
right. They refused to fund the Border Patrol. These are all critical
security priorities.
So Republicans are going to fund them through reconciliation because
the Democrats have left us no other option. And to prevent Democrats
from voting to defund law enforcement once again in September, we are
going to fund border security and immigration enforcement for the next
3 years.
If you want to see a partisan circus, look no further than Democrats'
43-day government shutdown in the fall. Remember what that was about--
what that was over. It was over a clean, nonpartisan funding bill. And
the Democrats' shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security happened
because they couldn't take yes for an answer.
Our national security, the functioning of our government, the
salaries of government workers, all--all--have been repeatedly
sacrificed this year thanks to Democrats' partisanship.
I would say that the Democrat leader should be embarrassed by what
his party has done to the Federal Government and to the Senate itself.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator
Heinrich for up to 5 minutes, Senator Klobuchar for up to 5 minutes,
and Senator Smith for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Working Families Tax Cuts
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, well, today Trump is in Las Vegas trying
to sell the American people on his tax policies and convince them that
everything is going just dandy, but the reality for American families
is that thanks to these deleterious policies people are hurting worse
than before. Working families are hurting worse than before, middle-
class families are hurting worse than before; overall, because of
Trump's policies, people are hurting.
Here is the truth in Las Vegas. Here is the truth. If you are a hotel
or casino owner in Las Vegas, if you are a multimillionaire, Donald
Trump's tax policies have been very good to you; but if you are a hotel
staffer, a waiter, a janitor, a DoorDash delivery driver, the tax
policies don't come close to undoing the economic damage he has done to
you.
Again, if you are a hotel owner, a casino owner in Las Vegas, if you
are a multimillionaire, Trump's tax policies
[[Page S1809]]
have been very, very good to you; but if you are a hotel staffer, a
waiter, a janitor, a DoorDash delivery driver, Trump's tax policies
don't come close to undoing the economic damage Trump has done to you
and your family.
And there are three major reasons Donald Trump's ``Big Ugly Bill''
has turned out to be a giant scam for most Americans. First,
Republicans promised their ``Big Ugly Bill'' would mean tax refunds of
more than a thousand dollars. That promise was false. The average
refund is less than one-third of what the Republicans promised.
Second, whatever benefit families may have gotten has already been
devoured by Trump's policies that have led to higher gas prices, higher
grocery prices, higher electric costs.
For example, the average tax cut is maybe an extra $350. But thanks
to Donald Trump's war in Iran alone, Americans will pay an extra $740
this year just to fill up their tanks. Just like that, your tax break
is gone, America. And that doesn't include the increase to healthcare
costs, grocery costs, housing costs, electricity costs, and so much
more.
So the tax cut is more than undone by the rise in costs, the rise in
costs that Americans feel just about across the board, so many of them,
because of Donald Trump's policies.
Third, Donald Trump's ``Big Ugly Bill'' is overwhelmingly skewed to
benefit the rich. This is an old Republican trick: Give most of the tax
breaks to the very wealthy, let a little bit trickle down to middle-
class people and call it a middle-class tax break. It is a tax break
for the rich.
While the average American might see a small tax increase, the
ultrarich will see their taxes cut by more than a trillion dollars over
the next decade.
Republicans, if you wanted to make the tax cut a middle-class tax
cut, put all of the money into the middle class, not a nickel to
billionaire-millionaire tax cuts.
The largest corporations will see a $65 billion tax cut in just 1
year alone. Multimillionaires are getting a tax cut worth more than
$300,000 a year.
The vast majority of these tax breaks go to the very wealthy and the
big corporations. To label this package of tax breaks a middle-class
tax cut is just as close to lying as it comes.
And for those of you who live in Las Vegas, don't forget, Trump's
disastrous tariff policies and foreign policies are greatly cutting
down on tourism in the United States and will greatly cut down on
tourism to Las Vegas and Nevada, particularly this summer, the
lifeblood of the Las Vegas and Nevada economies.
And then when you add in the soaring costs of jet fuel that will
raise airline tickets, that will be far more damage to the Nevada
economy and Nevada families than any gain from Trump's tax policies.
So, yes, if you are a multimillionaire or giant corporation, Trump's
policies are really helping you. With Trump's policies, the owners of
Las Vegas big hotels will do far better than the staff, the custodians,
the drivers, or the servers.
If you have to work for a living, Donald Trump's tax breaks, coupled
with his other policies, are turning out to be a giant failure for you,
putting your family in an economic hole.
Department of Homeland Security
Mr. President, on Department of Homeland Security, well, all this
week the Republican leader has come to the floor to try and pin his
party's failure to fund the Department of Homeland Security on
Democrats. He did it again today. He said we--Democrats--``shut down
the appropriations process,'' and that ``Republicans have been forced
to do this the hard way.''
Let's be very clear about all of this. DHS has been shut down now for
over 60 days for one reason and one reason only: Republicans have been
so paralyzed by their own dysfunction that they cannot govern.
Republican leaders in the House and the Senate are busy fighting with
each other, and that is what has caused this paralysis.
Remember, it was Thune's bill that we passed in the Senate at the end
of the last work period, not a Democratic bill. It was Thune's bill.
Thune put the bill on the floor to fund every single Agency within DHS
except for ICE and Border Patrol, and it passed unanimously.
It was Thune's bill; Democrats agreed and voted yes. In fact,
Democrats agreed twice. It was Speaker Johnson, cowed by radical
rightwing Republicans in the House, who stood in the way--not
Democrats.
If Johnson would have put the bill on the floor, which he was afraid
to do, it would have passed. So if the majority leader wants to put an
end to this Department of Homeland Security shutdown, he should start
talking to Speaker Johnson in the House instead of pointing fingers at
us.
That is why DHS remains shut down, even though every single Democrat
stands ready to fund agencies like TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and CISA and
at a moment's notice.
But this is not the path Republicans want to take. They do not seem
interested in reaching a compromise to rein in ICE with exceedingly
simple guardrails.
We were clear from the start about what kind of reforms the American
people want, and Republicans have never moved, never budged.
Republicans seem so sickened, in fact, by the idea of basic reforms to
ICE that they would rather take up weeks of the Senate's time, ramming
through a party-line reconciliation package without a shred of the
reforms that Americans demand, commonsense reforms that police
departments in every part of the country obey: no masks, warrants when
you break into someone's home, cooperating with local authorities.
That is right, instead of passing legislation to lower gas prices,
lower grocery prices, lower energy costs, Republicans want to hijack
the Senate and spend weeks on reconciliation to ram through billions
more for ICE with zero reforms.
So while I have great respect for the Republican leader, the plain
facts are these: Democrats are not the ones dragging this shutdown on;
Republicans are.
And, again, I say this to Leader Thune: Republicans could open DHS
today, all they have to do is start listening to the American people
and stop obeying Donald Trump and the MAGA radical right.
Iran
Mr. President, on Iran, there is an old saying that says ``success
has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.'' The Republicans who
voted against our War Powers Resolution yesterday, they may try and
dodge responsibility for Trump's failed war, but they have joint
custody over this debate. And certainly the war is a debacle.
After 48 days of destruction, carnage, and soaring costs here in
America and around the world, Trump has no idea how to end this war,
just as he had no plan when he started it. All this war has gotten us
is a more radical Iranian regime with greater nuclear ambitions, a
closed Strait of Hormuz, skyrocketing gas costs, and the ire of the
world.
Is anyone surprised that only one in four Americans think that
``Operation Epic Failure'' has been worth it? That is what we call it,
Operation Epic Failure.
Trump isn't practicing the ``Art of the Deal''; Trump is practicing
the ``Art of Defeat'', and he seems all too good at it. Republicans are
kidding themselves if they think they can distance themselves from
Trump's Iran blunder by sitting on the sidelines.
When it comes to war and peace--the most important decision a
legislator can make--Republicans in the Senate and the House have an
obligation to take a stand, but they are putting their heads in the
sand. They haven't even had one hearing on this war. This is a war that
has gone on close to 50 days, creating huge problems for our economy,
huge problems for our national security, and not one hearing? What are
you afraid of?
Republicans have had four opportunities to support our War Powers
Resolution, to finally reassert Congress' constitutional authority, and
each time they have said no. But the debate is not over. Next week,
Republicans will have to answer the question again: Do you want endless
war with Iran, yes or no?
Senate Democrats will bring our War Powers Resolution to the floor
for a vote next week and every week that Trump's war continues.
Republican silence is a stamp of approval. Republican silence is a
stamp
[[Page S1810]]
of approval, saying they will support, acquiesce, and go along with
this disaster.
I thank Senator Duckworth for introducing this resolution and arguing
for it so eloquently as only she can.
And I want to thank Senator Kaine for keeping this pressing issue on
the top of the mind for the Senate and for the Nation. The same goes
for Senator Booker and so many in our caucus who have participated in
this debate.
Tribute to Assistant Chief Sean P. Gallagher
Finally, on Assistant Chief Sean Gallagher, I want to join the rest
of the Senate today in saying thank you and goodbye to one of the most
beloved members of the Capitol Police, Assistant Chief Sean Gallagher.
He retires today after 25 incredible years. He joined the Department in
April of 2001 and has been a part of keeping the Capitol Complex safe
during some of the most consequential moments in our Nation's history,
from national crises, to Presidential inaugurations, to papal visits,
and so much more.
After January 6, he led the establishment of the Department's peer
support program, and helped create the Howard C. Liebengood Center for
Wellness to support officer well-being.
We thank Assistant Chief Gallagher for 25 years of service to the
U.S. Capitol Police, to Congress, and to our Nation.
We say goodbye and thank you on your retirement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
H.J. Res. 140
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we have a vote before us today, and
this vote is involving an unprecedented use of a procedural mechanism
that would have far-reaching consequences, not just for the beautiful
Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, but for public lands across
our country.
And I want to thank my colleagues, including, of course, Senator
Smith who you are about to hear from, Senators Heinrich and Baldwin for
speaking out against this resolution on the floor last night.
I have especially been careful when you look at a project like the
one proposed here that is so close to the cherished Boundary Waters
Canoe Area, and I continue to have concerns about this administration's
intention and their disregard of science across the board in every
Agency in the government, but especially when you are looking at
something like this.
So, as many of my colleagues know, I am the granddaughter of an iron
ore miner. My grandpa loved that life, but he mostly also loved the
time he had in the outdoors. He would go down in a cage 1,500 feet
every single day with the lunch bucket that my grandma would pack for
him, that black lunch bucket.
I always thought, what did he think when he was going down every day,
when he was saving money in a coffee can to send his two sons to
college when he never even got to graduate from high school? Well, he
would think of the outdoors because he loved to hunt, he loved to fish,
and he loved to pick blueberries.
In his later years, he became a foreman of the mine. I would meet
people when I was first running for the U.S. Senate up in Northern
Minnesota, where my relatives live, and they would say to me: You know,
my dad worked with your grandpa.
They said: A lot of times, the foremen would never go down when they
found a new part of the mine. They would always stay up at the top and
radio down. But your grandpa always went with the guys, and he always
went first.
That was my grandpa.
So the joy he had was the outdoors.
That mining life is so important in Northern Minnesota. And I have
stood with our miners. I have stood with them when steel was dumped
from China. I have brought the former President's Chief of Staff up to
Northern Minnesota, where we met with steelworkers, where we met with
mine owners, and we have made the case for changes. We have made the
case for their benefit. We have made the case for them. And that is why
we are getting a new mine, Mesabi Metallics, which is a taconite mine
that I just visited last week. It is incredible. Hundreds and hundreds
of new jobs are about to open, construction jobs. That permitting
process has been fair, and it has been fast. But what we have today is
something else.
It has always been a balance of the working life and mining and the
outdoors. My family values the outdoors. My mom and dad met in the Twin
Cities Hiking Club, and generations of Minnesotans have found the same
joy up north.
So let's talk about H.J. Res. 140. It would threaten public lands
across the country. So many of our colleagues know this. Senator Smith
has made this case ardently and repeatedly.
Secretaries of the Interior have long had the ability to issue public
land orders to reserve Federal land for specific uses, setting it aside
for things like infrastructure, certain military purposes, training,
border security protection, and, yes, conservation. But now, for the
first time, the Congressional Review Act is being used to rescind the
public land order that bans mining in the Boundary Waters for 20 years.
Senator Heinrich, the ranking member on the Interior Committee, will
soon tell you that this is unprecedented. Public land orders have never
been considered rules under the CRA and have never been submitted to
Congress' rules.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service conducted a
public input process.
Today, the CRA before the Senate is being used simply as a way of
revoking the land withdrawal without having to conduct the level of
public engagement that is expected.
The unprecedented use of the CRA will have broader disruptive impacts
on the ability of land management agencies to oversee public lands all
across the country. Yes, this is focused on Northern Minnesota today,
but where will it be next time? What part of your State will it be
focused on? What will happen to your public lands?
If this CRA resolution were approved, public access to some of the
Nation's most treasured landscapes could be lost and the careful
management of their lands and waters eliminated.
There are hundreds of public land orders that have been issued to
protect our public lands that would be put at risk. Twenty-five
military withdrawals would no longer be considered final. The CRA could
even threaten the protected status of the Grand Canyon.
So I will close with this, as I did last night. Sigurd Olson, the
great Ely, MN, author and conservationist who went from that small,
hardscrabble mining town to great national prominence, someone who
loved the land and was a beautiful author--he wrote:
Joys come from simple and natural things: mists over
meadows, sunlight on leaves, the path of the moon over water.
That is the Boundary Waters to me. That is the Boundary Waters to so
many people in Minnesota and across our country.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law Hubert Humphrey's
bill to protect this area by creating the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness.
This was a special, special place to my dad and to our family. My dad
actually went to Ely Junior College when Sigurd Olson was the dean, and
that launched a lifelong friendship. I found books of Sigurd Olson's in
my dad's belongings after we lost him, with notes of my dad of their
meetings together and their time together.
As my dad said, the Boundary Waters is a million acres of waterways
and forests unlike any in the United States. So we should be preserving
and treating these public lands as treasures, not messing around like
is happening today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, why are we here today? We are here today
because some people want to abuse the Congressional Review Act and use
it in a way it has never been used before.
The Boundary Waters is protected from copper sulfide mining because
there was a secretarial order that was put in place, a narrow order
authorized by statute under FLPMA--the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act--which specifically spells out the Secretary of the
Interior's authority to do this. It is not a regulation.
The Congressional Review Act was written to prevent regulatory
overreach. Regulations are broad. They
[[Page S1811]]
apply to large swaths of the country. They are not things that are
authorized specifically in statute.
This has never been done before, and if we do this here, if we do it
to the delegation from Minnesota, who has spoken up again and again and
again about why this is wrong, what about when it is aimed at Montana?
what about when it is aimed at Alaska? what about when it is aimed at
South Dakota?
This is wrong. And why are we doing it? To pad the pockets of the
President's buddy from Chile so that he can take our minerals--our
minerals, the American people's minerals--send them to China, process
them in China, and then maybe sell them back to the American people
with a tariff. This is nuts. Is that ``America First''? That is
``America Last.''
What is at stake? What is at stake is a million acres of the most
pristine public lands in the United States, places where my kids have
canoed and fished and forged their identities. We are going to do that
to Minnesota? We are going to do that to the delegation from Minnesota?
We are going to do that to the American people who cherish this place?
Twenty percent of the National Forest Service System's freshwater is
in these Boundary Waters, and we are going to pollute that with
sulfuric acid? This company plans to dump millions of tons of waste
rock on this site. That will never be removed. It will be sitting
there, waiting for the air and the water to turn that waste rock full
of sulfides into sulfuric acid.
I can tell you as somebody who has been a natural resources trustee,
who has had to negotiate with copper companies in my own State, that
this type of copper mining has never been done without polluting the
water--never. Not once. So we are guaranteeing that we are going to
pollute the Boundary Waters.
It is fashionable today to talk about selling off the public lands.
These places--this place that people like Teddy Roosevelt and Sigurd
Olson and so many others fought to preserve--they are the anvil on
which we have forged our collective identity as a country. They are the
places we are still free. They are not places to sell off to some
foreign company for a few years of profit, a few years versus a century
of identity for the people of Minnesota and this country.
This is a dark day for this body. This is a stain on what the Senate
used to be but certainly is not today.
The public lands are the one thing, when I go home, that unites my
constituents from left to right. Whether you are a bowhunter or a bunny
hugger, it doesn't matter--they love our public lands, and they care
about our public lands.
There are many places that we can mine and do it right. My dad worked
for Anaconda Copper. My grandfather was a gold miner. This is a
boondoggle. This is wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to start by just thanking my
colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Heinrich and
Senator Baldwin and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
have joined me in opposing H.J. Res. 140.
I start from this place: One of our most important responsibilities,
I think, in this body is to protect our precious public spaces--those
places that, as Senator Heinrich just said so eloquently, helped to
forge our national identity and connect us to our past and to our
future. I am thinking of places like Yosemite and the Black Hills of
South Dakota, the Grand Canyon, and, of course, the Boundary Waters.
Traditionally, historically in this body, we have approached our
responsibilities to protect these precious places with a sense of
balance. We think of the value of the wilderness itself. We also think
of the need for economic opportunities for our constituents. We think
of our responsibilities around stewardship of these places, of these
natural resources.
In that balancing effort that we have traditionally tried to take, we
are guided by the science; we are guided by public input, what people
in these parts of the country think is the best thing to do, because
those folks that are closest to the issues, closest to the land are
going to have the best ideas about what should happen to the land.
Also, we are guided by the longstanding trust and treaty obligations
that the Federal Government has to the Tribal nations, a sovereign
relationship that goes beyond just the laws of this country.
This is actually what Minnesota knows how to do. We know how to
strike this balance. Minnesota is the No. 1 producer in the country of
iron ore. The battleships and the tanks of World War II were built with
Minnesota iron.
Minnesota is also moving down the path of figuring out how to safely
and responsibly mine the copper and the nickel and the platinum group
of metals that are there in the Duluth Complex up in Northern
Minnesota. You can see it in the maps that I was showing last night.
But Minnesota also understands--we know that you can support mining,
but that does not mean that you support every mine in every place. I
think that this is bipartisan. We understand this in our country. We
can support the need for mining, but that doesn't mean that we mine on
the edge of Chaco Canyon or on the rim of the Grand Canyon, and it does
not mean that we think that a copper sulfide mine on the doorstep of
the Boundary Waters is a good idea.
Colleagues, what you are about to do, should you end up passing H.J.
Res. 140--what you are about to do is fly in the face of that balance
that has traditionally been a bipartisan goal, something that we have
traditionally worked on together. You are about--should you make this
vote, you are about to overturn a public land order that was put in
place 3 years ago that stopped not all mining--not all mining,
colleagues--but this particular kind of copper sulfide mining for 20
years in just one place--in this one place--in the Superior National
Forest on the doorstep of the Boundary Waters.
If this is the decision that you end up making, colleagues, in this
goal that we have of striking a balance, you are picking one side over
the other. You are putting your thumb on the wrong side. When it comes
to protecting this precious place, you are choosing the wrong side
because you are not protecting this place that needs our support, that
needs our protection.
Colleagues, the outdoor economy and outdoor recreation is essential
to the vibrancy of Northern Minnesota. You are not choosing that if you
make this decision, and you support H.J. Res. 140.
Of the small business people who count on the economy of Northern
Minnesota and the outdoor recreation economy, I have a letter here from
dozens and dozens of Minnesota small businesses beseeching the Senate
to oppose H.J. Res. 140, and the reason is they tell us right here.
They say:
The love for the Boundary Waters powers a strong and
enduring recreation economy in Northeastern Minnesota . . .
17,000 jobs and over $1 billion in sales annually in the
region.
Many small businesses have been able to grow and develop and support
their families because of the access to this incredible resource of the
Boundary Waters. But, no, colleagues, you would not be choosing that in
this balance that we are trying to strike.
Colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are ignoring what
Minnesota wants, not only the hundreds of thousands of people who sent
in their public comments during the process of setting aside this space
and protecting it from mining but the 70 percent of Minnesotans who
say: No, we do not want this mine in this place. We want our elected
leaders to protect--to protect--the Boundary Waters.
I want to be clear because there has been a question about this. This
is not just people from the Twin Cities who go up to the Boundary
Waters to visit. This is everybody in Minnesota. This is people who
live in Northeastern Minnesota who want to see this protection done.
So, colleagues, if you support H.J. Res. 140, you are also choosing
to ignore the trust and the treaty obligations that we have to the
Chippewa Tribes in Northern Minnesota. You are saying: Nope. We are not
going to pay any attention to that. That doesn't matter.
You know that this mine is going to infringe on their hunting and
fishing
[[Page S1812]]
rights, on their rights to harvest wild rice, but you are saying: I am
not going to come down on that side of the scale.
What you are going to do if you support H.J. Res. 140 is you are
going to come down--who is the winner here? You are going to come down
on the side of a Chilean billionaire, a Chilean billionaire who owns
the largest copper mine--the largest copper company--in the whole
world, a Chilean billionaire who is going to take our minerals, ship
them to the Pacific coast, where they are going to go to China to get
smelted--where this company has a sweetheart deal with their smelters.
Then, if we are lucky, that copper is going to be sold back to us at a
profit.
That is not an ``America First'' strategy, colleagues. That is a
``Chilean Billionaire First'' strategy.
I can't help but just recognize that, as we are on the cusp of making
this decision in the Senate, isn't it ironic that President Trump, who
says that he is a supporter of miners and that he stands with
steelworkers, is about to use foreign steel to build his billionaire
ballroom off of the White House? What is that about?
Now, look, I understand that there are different perspectives on this
mining issue--I see this play out every single day in my beloved State
of Minnesota--but as you vote, I ask you to think about this: I ask you
to think about the precedent that you are setting here because here is
what I have learned after having been in the Senate for the last 9
years: What goes around comes around. What goes around comes around
because what you would be doing here, colleagues, is you would be
allowing this public land order to be rescinded under the Congressional
Review Act. This is a dangerous precedent. This has never been done
before. Public land orders have never previously been submitted by any
administration, including the Trump administration, as rules subject to
the CRA. This would be the first one submitted even though this public
land order was submitted 3 years ago, processed legally, and done by
the book--done by the book that Congress wrote.
So what does this really mean if this is the step that the Senate
takes today?
What this would mean is that any public land order that has been done
over, potentially, decades could then be rescinded by some partisan act
of Congress just willy-nilly. Think about what this means. It means
mineral leases, and it means timber public land orders in North Dakota.
It means that any public land order that has been out there in the past
or potentially any administrative action could be just undone under a
privileged process in the U.S. Senate.
Colleagues, I beseech you not to do this. I know that this is a
terrible thing for us to do. I know that not only will it have impacts
for my beloved Boundary Waters in my State but that it will have
impacts in all of our States.
So, as I close, I want to speak directly to the Minnesota people who
care so much about the Boundary Waters and who care so much about the
precious places that we have all over this country.
You have organized. You have made calls. You have sent messages. I am
thinking about the hunting and fishing groups. I am thinking about the
outdoor groups. I am thinking about the Minnesota citizens and American
citizens. I am thinking about all of the Tribal leaders and members who
have made your voices heard.
I want everyone to know that whatever the outcome of this vote this
afternoon, that we will not stop fighting, and we will not stop our
work to protect the Boundary Waters. Of all the places that we have in
this country, this place has such special meaning. It is a sacred
place, and we will never stop defending it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution by
title for the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
Vote on H.J. Res. 140
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mrs. MOODY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--49
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Hawley
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with
respect to H.J. Res. 140, the motion to reconsider be considered made
and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________